Case No. ZC21P00327

, however, when he does spend time with them (directly or indirectly) his general presentation and parenting capacity may be adversely affected, and he will not be as emotionally present for VB and LB.” (emphasis added) 48.These two passages contain two points of factual contention. The father challenges Mr Mamattah’s description of the mother as the children’s primary carer, arguing that the mother’s work commitments meant that the father was often taking charge of the children’s evening routine. I also heard disputed evidence as to which parent took charge of making day to day social arrangements and the like for the children and allegations about whether the mother had been seeking to exclude the father from school and friendship WhatsApp groups. In my view none of this evidence (which largely betrayed a lack of flexibility on the part of both parents and an inability to see the impact of their behaviour on the other parent and the children) detracts from the substance of the point that Mr Mamattah was seeking to make in this paragraph; that under both proposals that are before the court, the children would be living with the mother much of the time (either as the main carer if relocation is permitted; or at the very least for 50% of the time under a shared care arrangement if relocation is refused), and that a refusal to permit relocation would have a serious and adverse effect on both her mental wellbeing and her capacity to maintain employment and to provide the parental support that the children require.49.The other point of contention relates to what the father said to Mr Mamattah about his own position should relocation be permitted. Although in the passage I have set out above from his second report, Mr Mamattah records that he could “no longer” contemplate moving to the USA himself, his earlier report records that the father in his first interview had told him that he would consider such a move if relocation was permitted. Although the father, in his oral evidence, denied saying this, Mr Mamattah was not challenged on this point in cross-examination and I am satisfied that Mr Mamattah’s report accurately summarises what the father said to him. In any event, such a comment is consistent with the father’s own evidence to the court that if relocation is permitted there was at least a “possibility” that he would himself move to the USA too.50.Mr Mamattah’s exemplary reports set out the risks to the children inherent in both proposals. Whilst the reports do not come to a firm conclusion as to whether or not the children’s best interests would be best served by relocation (Mr Mamattah fully recognising the difficulty of the dilemma posed by the application), my sense of the tenor of his reports was that on balance he leant in favour of permitting relocation and Mr Mamattah confirmed that to me in the course of his oral evidence.51.Mr Mamattah also set out recommendations for the children’s living arrangements and contact under both proposals. If relocation is permitted he proposed that the only limitation to the father’s time with the children “should be the logistics and ability to travel and see VB and LB”. He felt that the suggestions made by the mother provided a sensible starting point with holidays being shared equally or with a slight prejudice in favour of the father. 52.If the children remained in the UK, with the parents separating, Mr Mamattah recommended that the children should start by spending the majority of their time living with their mother, but with a minimum of three consecutive nights per fortnight with the father. This would be with a view to increasing the time with the father so that ultimately a shared care arrangement was in place. In his oral evidence Mr Mamattah indicated that this was something that could be built up over a relatively short period of time. He recommended that there should be a shared lives with order to assist the parents in understanding that they are both equally important in making decisions for the children.